If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I don't know the laws regarding termination but if she has broken any laws it is likely to revolve around firing or threatening to fire him for exercising his rights outside of work. This would be akin to firing someone because of their religious preference regardless of what their on duty performance is like.

That was one of my first thoughts.
WI has a provision that nobody may face discipline of any sort at work for their "use or nonuse of lawful products" when not at work. It was written to protect smokers, but obviously applies to guns. I'm not having any success navigating the PA statute search engine to see if there's anything similar for you.

But there is the PA Constitution: Article 1 Section 1: Inherent rights of mankind.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Article 1 Section 21: Right to bear arms.The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Originally Posted by MLK, Jr

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.

Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie

Citizenship is a verb.

Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12

A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.

I respect your decisions and positions through the entirety of the story, Prophet!!

And yes, many employers DO have an interest in what you do outside of work. Various professional positions have contracts that include a morals clause. I own a business where we have fiduciary responsiblities and access to personal financial and other private information, much like bank employees. Employees with access to such information or with such responsibility must be above reproach in public. It is a relatively tight community and news travels fast as they say. Behaving in a manner that loses public trust could be devastating to my business and could lead to employee termination. How this applies to various employees in various businesses in various states is a matter of numerous employment and contractual laws but it is not BS in all cases that an employer has some say in outside of work behavior.

Prophet's situation is clearly different from my above example as his issue was not an original matter of employment/position and it is not clear if his boss is expressing personal feelings or a real concern of a business issue from her personal knowledge of her clientel. Regardless, IMO Prophet handled it well. He stood by his principles while remaining respectful and professional. His boss' reactions and resolution speak highly of him as an employee.

Is the job at the gym worth you disarming, would any of us acquiesce to this 'fair offer', or at a minimum not OCing? Some states have laws that do exactly what she is asking you to do. Disarm or conceal. It is unlikely that she is thinking in these terms. She has stated, unequivocally, that the only option is for you to disarm or quit.

Some folks rail against the state when the state does this. But that is the state and not a private citizen, so she is not infringing on your 2A right. She is holding your employment hostage based on her views of you carrying a gun.

It is all on you now. You have taken the emotional burden of firing a good employee for your off-hours behavior off of her shoulders. She can sleep at night knowing that you made (will make) the choice, not her when/if the time comes to make the choice.

Me, I'd walk, even in this economy.

Good luck Prophet, and carry on.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.

It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

I respect your decisions and positions through the entirety of the story, Prophet!!

And yes, many employers DO have an interest in what you do outside of work. Various professional positions have contracts that include a morals clause. I own a business where we have fiduciary responsiblities and access to personal financial and other private information, much like bank employees. Employees with access to such information or with such responsibility must be above reproach in public. It is a relatively tight community and news travels fast as they say. Behaving in a manner that loses public trust could be devastating to my business and could lead to employee termination. How this applies to various employees in various businesses in various states is a matter of numerous employment and contractual laws but it is not BS in all cases that an employer has some say in outside of work behavior.

Prophet's situation is clearly different from my above example as his issue was not an original matter of employment/position and it is not clear if his boss is expressing personal feelings or a real concern of a business issue from her personal knowledge of her clientel. Regardless, IMO Prophet handled it well. He stood by his principles while remaining respectful and professional. His boss' reactions and resolution speak highly of him as an employee.

I don't disagree with your assesment but the question should be what would the liability be for an employer that "forces" you to be disarmed either at work or while off duty.

I believe the employer should be held as an libal for any injury as a result of the employers requirments. If a employee is shot and killed at work and the employee wasn't able to defend himself due to the requirements of being disarmed. The employer had a direct hand in the death of the employee. If they allowed a employee to carry and he was shot and killed then the the employer DIDN"T not allow the employee to defend himself and gave the employee every opportunity to survive.

I have been shot at work and that was here in the states while working in a hospital. All I had to defend myself with was....NOTHING, I had to run across a parking lot dodging bullets. Not a good day at work, my friend was shot in the chest while the gunman walked around cars shooting people that were trying to hide.

Concur 100%

Originally Posted by Prophet

All in all I am very happy with the overall outcome of this story. I stood by my principles, I went to bed soundly and with a smile on my face, and I awoke to news that my steadfastness in what I believed would not cost me.

Win, win.

This sounds like the ideal outcome to me. You kept a job you liked, you didn't compromise your principles, and even learned that your boss values and respects you enough that she was willing to soften her position rather than lose you. By accepting her offer, you in turn demonstrate that you are not so blinded by zealotry that you can't accept her and her opinions. Live and let live.

Of course, you're not out of the woods yet--there's still the potential for a negative comment to bring you right back to where you started. But at least you have an opportunity to continue to gently bring her around to your position in the mean time. Merely continuing to be a responsible person and dedicated employee is the first step, but only the first step.

I don't disagree with your assesment but the question should be what would the liability be for an employer that "forces" you to be disarmed either at work or while off duty.

That is a great discussion. But I think the issue here was not carrying at all but OC v CC and moreso a boss dictating no OC outside of work.

I do have some sympathy for the boss' position. OC, while not legal in the city my offices are located in public, it is legal inside a business and on property controlled by that business. However, I do not generally allow OC in my office by emloyees because of our customers. I encourage and allow CC. MO law would allow someone even without a CC permit to carry in their car to work, and CC it into my office and during the day while either in the offfice, on the property or in their vehicle. I offer no opinion on their method of carry off the clock. I'm not rigid about it in the sense that if someone walked in took off their jacket and were OC at that point and then put their sidearm in their desk drawer, for example, as I often do dependinng on how I am dressed, that's not a problem.

That is a great discussion. But I think the issue here was not carrying at all but OC v CC and moreso a boss dictating no OC outside of work.

I do have some sympathy for the boss' position. OC, while not legal in the city my offices are located in public, it is legal inside a business and on property controlled by that business. However, I do not generally allow OC in my office by emloyees because of our customers. I encourage and allow CC. MO law would allow someone even without a CC permit to carry in their car to work, and CC it into my office and during the day while either in the offfice, on the property or in their vehicle. I offer no opinion on their method of carry off the clock. I'm not rigid about it in the sense that if someone walked in took off their jacket and were OC at that point and then put their sidearm in their desk drawer, for example, as I often do dependinng on how I am dressed, that's not a problem.

As someone that owed a buisness I understand and agree to a point. As someone that started with CC and now usally OC's I also understand your points and don't disagree and believe it is up to the owners to determain thier own policy's.

As someone that has worked with and for Law Enforcement I have to say OC is much more a deterent than CC though. I'm sure everyone slow's down or is a little more cautious when driving or passing a police car. Someone that owns a resterant might be a little more aware of his facility if he knows the heath inspector is coming for lunch. CC is fine and I still do it at certain events, but I do know it makes the bad guys pause and think twice before getting stupid when they know for a fact they are not the only armed people around.

A Little Off Topic....

I realize there is no comparision to the OP subject, but "on principle" , Being single, I have "lost" a few opportunitites to develope relationships with ladies who I was interested in based on there not being comfortable or agreeing with the fact that I carry daily...

Just Sayin...

Outdoorsman1

"On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

I realize there is no comparision to the OP subject, but "on principle" , Being single, I have "lost" a few opportunitites to develope relationships with ladies who I was interested in based on there not being comfortable or agreeing with the fact that I carry daily...

Just Sayin...

Outdoorsman1

A relationship with a person that feels uncomfortable with you because of your beliefs of your right to carry is not a relationship worth having. They are a victim and will be all their life.

As someone that owed a buisness I understand and agree to a point. As someone that started with CC and now usally OC's I also understand your points and don't disagree and believe it is up to the owners to determain thier own policy's.

As someone that has worked with and for Law Enforcement I have to say OC is much more a deterent than CC though. I'm sure everyone slow's down or is a little more cautious when driving or passing a police car. Someone that owns a resterant might be a little more aware of his facility if he knows the heath inspector is coming for lunch. CC is fine and I still do it at certain events, but I do know it makes the bad guys pause and think twice before getting stupid when they know for a fact they are not the only armed people around.

I generally agree. The OC/CC decision for a business owner must be based on numerous factors including risk and deterrance. I made the decision I think best to balance all the factors. A different type of business, or maybe a different area, and my decision might very well be different. If OC preemption passes in MO, I certainly would never deny my customers the freedom to carry OC in my business.

It is not good that any customer, real or imagined, can report their displeasure at you exercising your right, lawfully, off-hours, to your employer. If the customer is permitted to decide who is and who is not fit to work at the gym because of the employee's lawful off-hours behavior, then it may only be a matter of time. Is the boss the only one that has a problem with you exercising your right? We shall see.

In any event, you have agreed to quit if 'a complaint' is lodged for your off-hours lawful behavior, rather than be fired for your off-hours lawful behavior. The burden is no longer on the boss, but on you.

She wins, you lose.

OC is right, you lost. She deliberately got you to volunteer to stop OC'ing if she got a complaint. Simply put, she knew she could have lost everything to a you in litigation. Though I applaud your behavior and your responses she completely manipulated you.

OC is right, you lost. She deliberately got you to volunteer to stop OC'ing if she got a complaint. Simply put, she knew she could have lost everything to a you in litigation. Though I applaud your behavior and your responses she completely manipulated you.

I highly doubt that. It is more likely she simply found a way to control his actions to some extent, and retain him as an employee. I don't believe there would be any solid ground to assume she would lose in court.

OC is right, you lost. She deliberately got you to volunteer to stop OC'ing if she got a complaint. Simply put, she knew she could have lost everything to a you in litigation. Though I applaud your behavior and your responses she completely manipulated you.

I highly doubt that. It is more likely she simply found a way to control his actions to some extent, and retain him as an employee. I don't believe there would be any solid ground to assume she would lose in court.

Gunns and wrightme you are reading something that I never intended to write. I have not, nor will I change how I carry. I won't carry in her business but as a business owner it is her right to ask that. As for OC'ing on my own time I still do that and will still do that and if someone has a problem with it and complains then I'll lose my job. No big.

And this wasn't some machination on her part to insulate her from a lawsuit. First off, I wouldn't sue over this. Secondly, PA is an at will working state that means that they can fire me for anything other than that which is protected under specific classes of people. IE fired for race, age, disability, etc.

So, gunns, unless you think that manipulation occurs if my response is anything but "F-this Im outta here" I must disagree with your thought that I was manipulated in any way. I wanted to keep working there, her knee jerk reaction was to lay out some outlandish demand, I said no. She thought it over and reconsidered and it won't be an issue until it costs her money. How that is manipulation is beyond me.

Gunns and wrightme you are reading something that I never intended to write. I have not, nor will I change how I carry. I won't carry in her business but as a business owner it is her right to ask that. As for OC'ing on my own time I still do that and will still do that and if someone has a problem with it and complains then I'll lose my job. No big.

And this wasn't some machination on her part to insulate her from a lawsuit. First off, I wouldn't sue over this. Secondly, PA is an at will working state that means that they can fire me for anything other than that which is protected under specific classes of people. IE fired for race, age, disability, etc.

So, gunns, unless you think that manipulation occurs if my response is anything but "F-this Im outta here" I must disagree with your thought that I was manipulated in any way. I wanted to keep working there, her knee jerk reaction was to lay out some outlandish demand, I said no. She thought it over and reconsidered and it won't be an issue until it costs her money. How that is manipulation is beyond me.

There is no way to determine whether or not the complaint is real, in whole, or that the complaint is a 'either/or else' situation for the business owner. A harmless 'I don't like' comment from a customer does not mean that the customer will stop doing business. The owner is placed in the position of eliciting a qualifying statement from the customer, or to blow it off if the 'either/or else' statement is not made.

It would be nice to know which way the owner will go in that hypothetical situation.

Your continued employment is good.

The termination, if it happens, is bad, because the reason for termination could be held against you by a future employer. Even a simple termination for cause, or a some other uninformative response is still bad.

A future employer, hypothetically, would/could ask why you were terminated. There is no right answer other than the truth, you were terminated because you OC on your own time, because that is why you 'were' terminated.....wait, you quit, because you agreed to quit vs. being terminated. So, why did you quit? Once again, no right answer other than the truth, you OC in your off time.

Tough situation if it happens.
Good luck.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.

It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

As for OC'ing on my own time I still do that and will still do that and if someone has a problem with it and complains then I'll lose my job. No big.

How is it not a big deal for you to lose your job for legally exercising your rights as an American? You know who else tried infringing on peoples rights by giving ultimatums? Some guy named Hitler. People are so quick to push a side their beliefs for fear of how it makes someone else feel because it's "no big deal" until they look one day and realize that it was indeed, a very big deal after they lose their right entirely.

Originally Posted by Prophet

And this wasn't some machination on her part to insulate her from a lawsuit. First off, I wouldn't sue over this. Secondly, PA is an at will working state that means that they can fire me for anything other than that which is protected under specific classes of people. IE fired for race, age, disability, etc.

I admire you standing by your convictions in your email but the fact that you then relented by agreeing that if she receives a complaint, you will be fired seems to go against the very principles you stood by initially.

What you should have said is that you understand her not wanting you to OC at the work place and as the manager/owner of that establishment, she has the right to request that and that you will abide by her request. However, she does not have the right to request you not to OC outside of the work place and that her doing so infringes on your 2nd Amendment rights. She should also be made aware that if she chooses to terminate you based on her groundless claim that someone seeing you out in town OC'ing may cause her to lose business, that you would have no other choice but to pursue legal recourse against her and her establishment. I imagine she'll take keeping you and losing a client at $100 a week vs. firing you and losing everything she owns.

Last time I checked, your employer's beliefs didn't supercede the Constitution of the United States.

Finally, lets put this into a different social context to see if it makes sense? For the sake of argument, what if she had come to you and said, "I don't like the fact that outside of work, you go to church. I find it offensive and if one of my clients see's you entering a church, they may take offense and that will cause me to lose business. So you need to stop going to church or you will be fired."

2nd Amendment - A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

So go ahead and give up your rights...let me know how that works out for you!

Prophet gets to do what he wants in his free time. IF someone complained, then he and she will cross that bridge when they get to it. Why worry right now. He is standing up for his beliefs, and she is stating her requirement for not OCing at work. It's a small amount of diplomacy. He hasn't given up his rights. He may turn her opinion in the near future, and have an ally. He now has a chance to slowly educate her, and she may tell the complaintant to pack sand 2 months from now. He likes, and needed the job. She needs and likes him.. Think what you want, but I have to say, all is well that ends well, RIGHT NOW!!

The Second Amendment is in place
in case the politicians ignore the others